Megathread Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture Discussion

[burn out]

It's fucked up to kick people off of teams or otherwise fire them or whatever, whether they choose to kneel or not.

I disagree that kneeling is a sign of subservience to an ideology, I consider it instead a form of peaceful and effective protest. But regardless of what I think about it, it's fucked up to not just let individuals express themselves by either kneeling or not kneeling.

Do you think sports leagues should not be allowed to ban players from wearing/making political symbols while on the field?

 

[Xorkoth]

I mean I guess they're private enterprises so they should be allowed to do what they want in the name of private organizations having the freedom to conduct themselves how they see fit, but I don't think it's right. As I see it, signing the national anthem necessarily involves you presenting in one way or another (hand over the heart, standing, sitting, kneeling, etc). Choosing to kneel vs not kneel is not the same thing as, for example, wearing a jersey endorsing a candidate, or something like that.

And yes, I agree that making kneeling (or not kneeling) mandatory is bad. Individuals should be given the freedom to choose. I have as much of a problem with an organization making kneeling mandatory as I do with them making not kneeling mandatory.

I really still do not get what the big deal is about kneeling, and why people have made such a big fuss about it.

 

[burn out]

I mean I guess they're private enterprises so they should be allowed to do what they want in the name of private organizations having the freedom to conduct themselves how they see fit, but I don't think it's right. As I see it, signing the national anthem necessarily involves you presenting in one way or another (hand over the heart, standing, sitting, kneeling, etc). Choosing to kneel vs not kneel is not the same thing as, for example, wearing a jersey endorsing a candidate, or something like that.

[/QUOTE]

What about making the black power fist every time you score a touchdown or make a tackle or whatever? The NFL has actually has a lot of rules on what you can do and can't do on the field.

And yes, I agree that making kneeling (or not kneeling) mandatory is bad. Individuals should be given the freedom to choose. I have as much of a problem with an organization making kneeling mandatory as I do with them making not kneeling mandatory.

I really still do not get what the big deal is about kneeling, and why people have made such a big fuss about it.

Before any of this started the rulebook did say

"During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses."

Let's say I hired you as a tour guide on a boat I owned and you decided that every time the boat set sail, you were going to kneel in protest of racism or whatever and let's say this alienated some of my customers. Would you really think it was "fucked up" or "wrong" if I said you couldn't do that? And would you feel that way even if I showed you the official employee handbook said "when the ship sets sail, the tour guide shall stand at attention next to the first mate and salute the captain". You might think it was dumb that I wanted you to stand there and salute the captain but no one forced you to take the job and people work jobs that have policies they think are dumb all the time.

As for the fuss, I am surprised you don't see the reason for it given today's political climate. It goes to the heart of one of the political divides in the country. The woke crowd is obviously going to support the kneeling, whereas your average blue collar football fan, not only doesn't like wokeness, he probably also doesn't want politics in the ballgame. We are already bombarded by politics in the news, in the workplace, on social media etc and for a lot of people, settling into watching the ballgame was a way to take a break from that. Decent hard working people just trying to put food on the table for their family don't like being told how privileged and racist they are by athletes who make more money than they could ever dream of. Some of probably see kneeling as unpatriotic and this creates a split between the folks who follow the narrative that America is irredeemably racist, that all its institutions are racist, the police are racist, that innocent black people are being hunted down and shot by the thousands by police officers and white people are bad vs people who have become extremely sick of that narrative and prefer to emphasize more positive things about America, such as the argument that it's one the least racist nations on earth, that black people in America have a higher standard of living than any other country in the world, they have been given the opportunity to rise up into positions of wealth and power, there have been many programs and billions of dollars of spent in efforts to help them, etc etc. Also Trump weighed in, so of course that blew it up.

In short, this is exactly the kind of story the media loves to cover because it allows them to advance their agenda of promoting wokeness and racial division and conservative media and those in the anti SJW business also love it because it gives them something to talk about and get ratings from as well. So why wouldn't you expect there to be fuss over it?

 

[cduggles]

black people in America have a higher standard of living than any other country in the world

There are plenty of black people in other countries who are far wealthier than in the United States.

they have been given the opportunity to rise up into positions of wealth and power

Given is a pretty loaded word. I would say they had zero opportunity when brought as slaves, and I don’t think the entire Civil Rights movement was related to something “given” to black people.

I thought you had a good argument going before this stuff, fwiw. But you completely lost me.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

There are plenty of black people in other countries who are far wealthier than in the United States.

Princes of Nigeria agree, and ask for your help.

 

[burn out]

There are plenty of black people in other countries who are far wealthier than in the United States.

Given is a pretty loaded word. I would say they had zero opportunity when brought as slaves, and I don’t think the entire Civil Rights movement was related to something “given” to black people.

I thought you had a good argument going before this stuff, fwiw. But you completely lost me.

I'm saying they came here as slaves but the USA ended slavery and were eventually able to rise up to participate in the highest levels of government. Let's also not forget that they were slaves in their own country at the time and that there were black slave owners in America.

You're probably looking at this through the lens of "well of course we shouldn't have slavery" and "of course black freed slaves should be allowed to participate in government", etc. But if you look around the world and you look at history, notions like this were not obvious at all to many societies, there are places that still have slaves. Do you think Saudi Arabia has ever had a black president?

So when you look at race relations in the USA, a large part of how you see it will be determined by what you use as your bases for comparison. If your bases for comparison is an imaginary utopia where slavery never existed, blacks were never regarded as inferior, and everyone got along, you will see America's history differently from someone who compares it to what was actually going on in other countries around the world during the time America had slaves and the decades following.

So I am sorry if you don't like my wording, I wrote that post in a hurry but I really don't think it detracts from my overall point. I'm not tryng to say blacks didn't have to fight for rights and freedoms in the USA, but clearly their fight would not have been successful if the country as a whole was against their cause. Let's say America was truly irredeemably racist and 90% of white people hated black people. Why would they allow them to become members of congress, to become president, to become millionaires and celebrities? Why would they create and approve programs designed to help black people like affirmative program which can add as much as 100 points to black person's SAT score allowing them to get into schools over Asians and whites who performed better?

 

[Zephyn]

What to cultural appropriation and cancel culture have in common other than some people getting "cancelled" for appropriation? These threads don't necessarily mix

 

[cduggles]

What to cultural appropriation and cancel culture have in common other than some people getting "cancelled" for appropriation? These threads don't necessarily mix

A lot of people were posting simultaneously about both topics, and it would have been impossible to split the thread. Agree they’re an odd couple.

 

[cduggles]

I'm saying they came here as slaves but the USA ended slavery and were eventually able to rise up to participate in the highest levels of government. Let's also not forget that they were slaves in their own country at the time and that there were black slave owners in America.

You're probably looking at this through the lens of "well of course we shouldn't have slavery" and "of course black freed slaves should be allowed to participate in government", etc. But if you look around the world and you look at history, notions like this were not obvious at all to many societies, there are places that still have slaves. Do you think Saudi Arabia has ever had a black president?

So when you look at race relations in the USA, a large part of how you see it will be determined by what you use as your bases for comparison. If your bases for comparison is an imaginary utopia where slavery never existed, blacks were never regarded as inferior, and everyone got along, you will see America's history differently from someone who compares it to what was actually going on in other countries around the world during the time America had slaves and the decades following.

So I am sorry if you don't like my wording, I wrote that post in a hurry but I really don't think it detracts from my overall point. I'm not tryng to say blacks didn't have to fight for rights and freedoms in the USA, but clearly their fight would not have been successful if the country as a whole was against their cause. Let's say America was truly irredeemably racist and 90% of white people hated black people. Why would they allow them to become members of congress, to become president, to become millionaires and celebrities? Why would they create and approve programs designed to help black people like affirmative program which can add as much as 100 points to black person's SAT score allowing them to get into schools over Asians and whites who performed better?

I get the gist of what you mean (sorry I’m in a huge hurry), but I would state that I think there were plenty of people who had problems with every advancement black people have made, and still do to this day.

 

[burn out]

I get the gist of what you mean (sorry I’m in a huge hurry), but I would state that I think there were plenty of people who had problems with every advancement black people have made, and still do to this day.

Oh certainly but they are not the majority. The country voted in a black president twice in landslide elections.

There is always going to a segment of white people that doesn't want to live around blacks, just as there are some black people who don't want to be around whites. However, these types of opinions are not at all acceptable in mainstream society, at least not for white people. During the BLM protests last year there were crowds of black people marching chanting "kill the white folk" and yet this got very little media coverage at all. Can you imagine what would have happened had if white people took to the streets and chanted "kill the black folk"? Yet we are told America is a white supremacist country and all its institutions promote white supremacy despite the fact they many of them actively discriminate against white people and asians.

 

[cduggles]

^ I’m not sure how we got from kneeling to affirmative action and BLM, but it’s really off topic to me. Dragging this stuff in is where you lost me on what looked at first like a very reasonable argument against kneeling.

We have a BLM thread if you’d like to continue in this vein:

Social Justice - Black Lives Matter Discussion Thread

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/02/black-lives-matter-leader-calls-white-people-subhuman-with-genetic-defects/ It is not surprising at all that the racist hate group black lives matter is pro-eugenics, and science denialists. These are the same poorly educated black people who believe...

www.bluelight.org

 

[burn out]

My response to Xorkoth contained two parts. The first part was an argument against kneeling, which I am glad you found very reasonable.

The second part was a response to his statement that he never saw what the fuss was about. I tried to give my theory on what the fuss was about, which was that this issue was guaranteed to bring in ratings/serve the media's agenda because it relates to a very hot button topic in our society today: racism/wokeness/BLM. That's how we got from kneeling to BLM.

You can agree with my argument against kneeling and disagree with my theory on what the fuss about it was, so I am confused as to how I "lost you". Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough? If you disagree on what the fuss was about, that's fine and I'd like to hear your opinion on what it was about. You can keep it short if you feel it's off topic or post in the other thread.

 

[cduggles]

Okay, that’s fair.
You lost me in the sense of me disagreeing with the underpinnings of your statement, which obviates me from agreeing with the post as a whole.
Also, I followed your reasoning, but I found some of the language to be objectionable, like the words “give” and “allow” regarding the civil rights movement, which I believe I’ve sufficiently explained.
Additionally, Colin Kaepernick first knelt in 2016, which predates the rise of BLM as a nationally popular organization (mostly in 2019 to 2020), so that’s not what all the media attention was about at that time or for at least a couple of years afterwards. Maybe BLM is part of the narrative now that drives the attention towards kneeling in sports, but it certainly wasn’t then and it was more prominent then. So I don’t think a thorough or cogent explanation comes from that line of reasoning.
(Affirmative action is to my mind completely irrelevant to why kneeling by NFL teams received so much attention, for thoroughness.)
I think there are media narratives on the left and right that drove and still drive the media’s attention to athletes kneeling, and that they revolve around the core issue of police brutality being either systemic or “a few bad apples”, depending on which side of the issue one falls.
I felt your language was very loaded in your description of these drivers, among other problematic aspects that I won’t get into, see examples below:

woke

average blue collar football fan

Decent hard working people

they have been given the opportunity to rise

You're probably looking at this through the lens of

This last one just annoyed me because you made an assumption about how I think.

Colin Kaepernick was clearly canceled by those “decent hard working people”, so this is at least partly relevant to this thread, so I’ll leave it here.

 

[burn out]

Also, I followed your reasoning, but I found some of the language to be objectionable, like the words “give” and “allow” regarding the civil rights movement, which I believe I’ve sufficiently explained.

I am not sure that has been sufficiently explained. Are you suggesting black people took these rights by force? Because otherwise, I don't see how the word give doesn't apply. If you owed me $1,000 I would be perfectly justified in saying give me what you owe. The only way I would see that word not applying would be if I took the money back by force. Even if I held a gun to your head, I could still say "I held a gun to his head and he finally gave me the money he owed me".

Additionally, Colin Kaepernick first knelt in 2016, which predates the rise of BLM as a nationally popular organization (mostly in 2019 to 2020), so that’s not what all the media attention was about at that time or for at least a couple of years afterwards

I have to disagree with you here. This is a quote from an article published in July of 2016:

The Black Lives Matter movement, which came to national prominence in the wake of the 2014 police shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old in Ferguson, Missouri, continues to gain attention following other incidents involving the deaths of black Americans during encounters with the police. A recent Pew Research Center survey conducted Feb. 29-May 8, 2016, found that general awareness of Black Lives Matter is widespread among black and white U.S. adults, but attitudes about the movement vary considerably between groups.

How Americans view the Black Lives Matter movement

General awareness of Black Lives Matter is widespread among black and white U.S. adults, but attitudes about the movement vary considerably between groups.

www.pewresearch.org

I am pretty sure I had heard of BLM in 2016 and if you read the rest of the link it says 70% of Americans had heard of it. I would consider something that 70% of Americans had heard of to be nationally popular. It may have become even more popular later on but it had already gained national attention in 2016.

I think there are media narratives on the left and right that drove and still drive the media’s attention to athletes kneeling, and that they revolve around the core issue of police brutality being either systemic or “a few bad apples”, depending on which side of the issue one falls.

Yes, I agree. That is basically what I was trying to say although I'd have to amend this to say the core issue is not simply police brutality, but more specifically police brutality/excessive force used on black people and police racism against black people. When police kill or mistreat an unarmed white man, it does not gain anywhere near the coverage or garner anywhere near the same level of public outrage.

 

[cduggles]

Are you suggesting black people took these rights by force?

I would state that that black people used many mechanisms to assert these rights, with great risk to their lives, most of these methods being peaceful. Passive resistance being chief among them.

The Freedom Riders (such as the late great Congressman John Lewis, some of whom were killed by firebombing or injured), assassinated leaders (Martin Luther King Jr. being the obvious example), activists who fought for integration who faced fire hoses and white supremacists and police dogs, and the kids who attend hostile mainly white schools certainly weren’t “allowed” or “given” those freedoms as I understand those words. They fought for them.

(And yes there were white people who helped.)

I am pretty sure I had heard of BLM in 2016 and if you read the rest of the link it says 70% of Americans had heard of it. I would consider something that 70% of Americans had heard of to be nationally popular. It may have become even more popular later on but it had already gained national attention in 2016.

Hearing about a hashtag isn’t exactly how I would measure national profile, as BLM had a national network of just over 30 local chapters between 2014 and 2016. That isn’t even one chapter per state.

Black Lives Matter - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

My measurement of BLM’s significant rise to national prominence was “when an estimated 15 million to 26 million people participated in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, making it one of the largest movements in the country's history.”

Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History (Published 2020)

Recent polls suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the U.S. have participated in recent protests.

www.nytimes.com

And we’ll also have to disagree on how important BLM was in driving media narrative pre-2019 to 2020, when people, including myself, had merely heard of them. I don’t think they drove the agenda of the mainstream media back then as they did in 2019 to 2020, and I would argue they have had their peak, although they are still useful to right-wing media.

 

[burn out]

I would state that that black people used many mechanisms to assert these rights, with great risk to their lives, most of these methods being peaceful. Passive resistance being chief among them.

The Freedom Riders (such as the late great Congressman John Lewis, some of whom were killed by firebombing or injured), assassinated leaders (Martin Luther King Jr. being the obvious example), activists who fought for integration who faced fire hoses and white supremacists and police dogs, and the kids who attend hostile mainly white schools certainly weren’t “allowed” or “given” those freedoms as I understand those words. They fought for them.

(And yes there were white people who helped.)

Not to sound nitpicky but the example I provided demonstrated that you can fight for something and still use the word given to describe your acquisition of it. Here is a quote from history.com:

During Reconstruction, Black people took on leadership roles like never before. They held public office and sought legislative changes for equality and the right to vote.

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gave Black people equal protection under the law. In 1870, the 15th Amendment granted Black American men the right to vote.

Civil Rights Movement

The civil rights movement was a struggle for social justice that took place mainly during the 1950s and 1960s for Black Americans to gain equal rights under

www.history.com

As you can see, they are using terms like "gave" and "granted". If these terms were really considered objectionable, I find it hard to believe history.com would be using them. You might personally find them objectionable, but this is the first time I have heard this.

As for the BLM timeline, I agree that they did not drive the agenda of the mainstream media in 2016 and frankly I don't think they drove it in 2019 either but they did get national news coverage. I would consider an organization with 30 plus chapters around the nation that 70% of Americans have heard of and which garners national news coverage on a regular bases to be prominent. However, I agree they became a lot more prominent over the following years, especially in 2020. Of course exactly when an organization achieves "national prominence" is to some degree subjective, so we can agree to disagree on this point. I acrtually don't think we're too far apart, it's just that downplaying their prominence in 2016 serves your point and emphasizing it serves mine.

 

[w01fg4ng]

Tell that to Justin Bieber.

The guy looks like the worst of the worst white trash. Apparently this deadlocked look of his seems to miss the obviously mismatched ill fitting clothing my 7 year old could have designed and while the hair looks really embarassing, its not culture appropriation at all.

Anyone CAN get dreadlocks, unless you're bald, some just wear it better than others.

Afro hair suits cornrows and dreads naturally because of the hair type , looks pretty hit too and dreads are ok on ppl they suit, caucasian hair can do it but can look shitty, who cares anyway.


I suspect there's only a handful of morons who really think Bieber is being a racist type thing but hashtag that trends dont include Bieber for his talent this week much.

Guy looks like shit, the dreads look shit , not even close to anything about the black culture here, this is white trash through and through.

Justin Bieber is not fly for a white guy

Cancel culture is sometimes appropriate and sometimes "ridiculous" as you said.

Cancelling a musician for the way they look/dress is just about as ridiculous as it gets. I remember when Justin B got cancelled for looking too feminine when he was younger. Now people (like you) are cancelling him because of his hair style?

Ok

 

[aemetha]

Cancelling a musician for the way they look/dress is just about as ridiculous as it gets. I remember when Justin B got cancelled for looking too feminine when he was younger. Now people (like you) are cancelling him because of his hair style?

Most people would say it's appropriate to fire an appliance salesman who insists on wearing a welding mask to work. It doesn't actually affect his work performance, but it does put people off. Same situation here. His hairstyle doesn't affect his singing voice, but I don't want to listen because I see the picture and assume he's ridiculous. That's not cancel culture, that's just people making rational decisions about how to use their scarce resources (time, money). Cancel culture involves protest. In the Bieber example and the one I gave, that's just people not wanting to waste their time on people being a dick, no protest involved.

 

[w01fg4ng]

Protest is in an interesting choice of words.

It's what's protected under our first amendment. I don't find that annoying or ridiculous at all.

 

[aemetha]

Protest is in an interesting choice of words.

How so? I mean, it is what it is. Cancel culture is protest. They might be going about it in a different manner, but it's protest nonetheless. They see something they object to and they engage in activities to force a change. The issue isn't whether it's protest or not, the issue is whether or not the issues they object to warrant the level of protest.

It's what's protected under our first amendment. I don't find that annoying or ridiculous at all.

Yeah, but protest doesn't happen in the void. There has to be something to protest against, and those reasons can be annoying or ridiculous.